Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2001] All ER (D) 140 (May)
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Schiemann and Tuckey LJJ
Representation Mangit Gill QC and Shivani Jegarajah (instructed by Lloyd & Associates) for the applicant.
  Elisabeth Laing (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State.
Judgment Dates: 10 May 2001

Catchwords

Immigration - Asylum - Appeal - Reason for decision - Secretary of State refusing asylum - Special adjudicator determining that treatment of applicant not amounting to persecution - Immigration Appeal Tribunal refusing appeal against adjudicator's decision - Whether tribunal in error in determining treatment not amounting to persecution - Whether account taken of future risk of persecution.

The Case

In determining a claim for asylum, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal had erred in concluding that an applicant, a Roma, was not at risk of future persecution as it had failed to consider that he had been attacked in the past because of his ethnicity, and therefore remained at risk in the future, not because he had been attacked before, but because his ethnicity remained the same, and there had been no change in the quality of state protection or in the attitude of others towards those who were Roma.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.

Lexis®Library

  • The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
  • Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
  • Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary